Centre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers and Université d'Angers, Angers, France.
Ann Intern Med. 2009 Nov 17;151(10):677-86. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-10-200911170-00003.
BACKGROUND: Testing for pulmonary embolism often differs from that recommended by evidence-based guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a handheld clinical decision-support system to improve the diagnostic work-up of suspected pulmonary embolism among patients in the emergency department. DESIGN: Cluster randomized trial. Assignment was by random-number table, providers were not blinded, and outcome assessment was automated. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT00188032). SETTING: 20 emergency departments in France. PATIENTS: 1103 and 1768 consecutive outpatients with suspected pulmonary embolism. INTERVENTION: After a preintervention period involving 20 centers and 1103 patients, in which providers grew accustomed to inputting clinical data into handheld devices and investigators assessed baseline testing, emergency departments were randomly assigned to activation of a decision-support system on the devices (10 centers, 753 patients) or posters and pocket cards that showed validated diagnostic strategies (10 centers, 1015 patients). MEASUREMENTS: Appropriateness of diagnostic work-up, defined as any sequence of tests that yielded a posttest probability less than 5% or greater than 85% (primary outcome) or as strict adherence to guideline recommendations (secondary outcome); number of tests per patient (secondary outcome). RESULTS: The proportion of patients who received appropriate diagnostic work-ups was greater during the trial than in the preintervention period in both groups, but the increase was greater in the computer-based guidelines group (adjusted mean difference in increase, 19.3 percentage points favoring computer-based guidelines [95% CI, 2.9 to 35.6 percentage points]; P = 0.023). Among patients with appropriate work-ups, those in the computer-based guidelines group received slightly fewer tests than did patients in the paper guidelines group (mean tests per patient, 1.76 [SD, 0.98] vs. 2.25 [SD, 1.04]; P < 0.001). LIMITATION: The study was not designed to show a difference in the clinical outcomes of patients during follow-up. CONCLUSION: A handheld decision-support system improved diagnostic decision making for patients with suspected pulmonary embolism in the emergency department.
背景:肺栓塞的检测常常与基于证据的指南所推荐的检测不同。
目的:评估手持式临床决策支持系统在改善急诊科疑似肺栓塞患者诊断方面的效果。
设计:整群随机试验。采用随机数字表进行分组,医生未设盲,结局评估为自动化。(临床试验.gov 注册号:NCT00188032)。
地点:法国 20 个急诊科。
患者:1103 例和 1768 例连续疑似肺栓塞的门诊患者。
干预:在包括 20 个中心和 1103 例患者的预干预阶段之后,医生习惯将临床数据输入手持式设备,研究人员评估了基线检测,随后急诊科被随机分为激活设备上的决策支持系统(10 个中心,753 例患者)或展示经验证的诊断策略的海报和口袋卡片(10 个中心,1015 例患者)。
测量指标:诊断性检查的适宜性,定义为任何产生的后验概率低于 5%或高于 85%的检测序列(主要结局)或严格遵循指南推荐(次要结局);每位患者的检测数量(次要结局)。
结果:在试验期间,两组患者接受适宜诊断性检查的比例均高于预干预阶段,但基于计算机的指南组的增幅更大(调整后的平均差异增加 19.3 个百分点,支持基于计算机的指南[95%置信区间,2.9 至 35.6 个百分点];P = 0.023)。在接受适宜检查的患者中,基于计算机的指南组接受的检查略少于基于纸质指南组(每位患者的平均检查次数,1.76[标准差,0.98] vs. 2.25[标准差,1.04];P<0.001)。
局限性:该研究并非旨在显示患者在随访期间临床结局的差异。
结论:手持式决策支持系统改善了急诊科疑似肺栓塞患者的诊断决策。
Ann Intern Med. 2006-2-7
Ann Intern Med. 2009-11-17
J Eval Clin Pract. 2012-12-28
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017-5-1